Recently, a client with a D.U.I. case came in for a consultation, during which he informed me that he suffered from some severe psychological issues - the specifics of which are not important - that he claimed caused him not to realize that he was drinking and then operating his vehicle while intoxicated. It was an interesting issue I told him I would research.
Generally, to be guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution is required to prove the defendant possessed a certain state of mind when he violated a criminal statutes, whether it's purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. In many instances a defendant can then raise an affirmative defense, of insanity, or mental disease or defect, to show it wasn't possible for him to have the required state of mind at the time of the offense. Such a defense would be proven by producing doctors and/or medical records at the time of trial of he case, and I was able to obtain this person's medical records and speak with his doctor, who confirmed that the underlying psychological conditions would have prevented the person from realizing they were driving in excess or driving while impaired.
First, t should be noted that, in New Jersey, as opposed to some other states, D.U.I./D.W.I. is not a criminal offense, but rather a motor vehicle violation. Unfortunately for this person, my research revealed the exact issue had been decided by a Superior Court in State v. Inglis. That Court held that a violation of the drunk driving statute was a "per se" offense, meaning that it was not necessary for the prosecution to show the defendant had a particular state of mind, and only that the person was intoxicated and then operated a vehicle while intoxicated.
Fortunately, for the client who came into my office it appears he may have other defenses to the charge.
Generally, to be guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution is required to prove the defendant possessed a certain state of mind when he violated a criminal statutes, whether it's purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. In many instances a defendant can then raise an affirmative defense, of insanity, or mental disease or defect, to show it wasn't possible for him to have the required state of mind at the time of the offense. Such a defense would be proven by producing doctors and/or medical records at the time of trial of he case, and I was able to obtain this person's medical records and speak with his doctor, who confirmed that the underlying psychological conditions would have prevented the person from realizing they were driving in excess or driving while impaired.
First, t should be noted that, in New Jersey, as opposed to some other states, D.U.I./D.W.I. is not a criminal offense, but rather a motor vehicle violation. Unfortunately for this person, my research revealed the exact issue had been decided by a Superior Court in State v. Inglis. That Court held that a violation of the drunk driving statute was a "per se" offense, meaning that it was not necessary for the prosecution to show the defendant had a particular state of mind, and only that the person was intoxicated and then operated a vehicle while intoxicated.
Fortunately, for the client who came into my office it appears he may have other defenses to the charge.
RSS Feed